Quote :

"Here are some things we agree on: - There are people getting guns that should not be getting guns. - Presumably, we all think they should be stopped. The gun lobby should be applauding any effort to curtail the procurement of guns by violent people, whack jobs, and morons. Instead, they look at any effort to but rules on who can own guns and what guns should be capable of doing as a full frontal assault on their rights (the well regulated part of well regulated militia apparently slipping right past them). If the fine folks at the NRA would get their heads out of their asses and work with someone trying to keep, say, a mentally disturbed VT student from buying a couple of guns in a way that protects the right of Joe Responsible we probably wouldn't even be having this argument."

Here's the trick to all of this. If random Joe Crazy is not sane enough to be trusted with his constitutional right to bear arms, then he is also not sane enough to be trusted with his constitutional right to free speech, freedom of association or freedom to privacy. In fact, if we are so afraid that letting Joe Crazy have a gun is going to cause him to go bat shit insane and kill everyone around him, Joe Crazy should not be allowed to walk the street a free man period. The spike in UK knife crime (see Knife Culture thread from a month back) and the recent attack in Japan (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/2098153/Japan-knife-killings-Alleged-killer-Tomohiro-Katos-plans-published-on-internet.html) demonstrate quite clearly that those who want to kill will do so, regardless of access or lack thereof to firearms.

Very few people have a problem with the idea of the NICS check (though its current implementation leaves room for improvement) and I doubt anyone really has a problem with requiring a competency check to carry your firearm in public (provided some assurance that the competency check is no more difficult that the qualifications for local LEO). But beyond that, if you're going to be denying someone their constitutional right because you believe them to be a danger to society if allowed to exercise that right, then they shouldn't be free in the first place.

Quote :

"There is absolutely no way this is accurate."

Why not? If you buy the first statistic of a gun preventing ~2.5 million crimes each year, which breaks down to 6,4849 each day, then the second statistic falls in line quite easily (5200 + 1100 + 550 = 6850). But if you really want, I'll try to dig up the most recent CJ survey and see what I can't come up with. Like any X per unit of time statistic any day may fall between 0 and infinity in terms of its contribution to that statistic. But just to put some things into perspective: http://www.sbrapecrisiscenter.org/04Information/info.html states that 1,871 rapes occur per day. Is it so difficult to believe that 550 are prevented each day as well?

Quote :

"and is that talking about cops showing guns as well? because if it is then it is irrelevant anyway."

Why is it irrelevant? Does the fact that we pay him to carry a gun make the fact that he stopped a crime with a gun any less important than when Joe Public stops one with his concealed gun?

6/21/2008 12:31:57 PM

Quote :

"What are the stats for Australia and gun related crimes?"

you need to look at violent crime in general, not just those involving guns.

6/21/2008 3:12:44 PM

^^ There is no way that is accurate because if 1100 murders are prevented everyday just through the use of guns, then that would mean there are a potential 400,000 murders prevented every year. Seeing as how there were less than 20,000 murders total for 2003 and 2004 each, that would mean guns prevent 2000% more murders than there actually are... a very suspect number. There is absolutely no way your numbers are correct, and the simple fact that the murder number was SO far off calls into question the rest of your data. There is absolutely no way your numbers are correct.

Also, quickly looking at rape statistics easily discredits what you are saying as well. Currently, there are less than 100,000 rapes per year as well. Your assertion puts that number around 650,000 (not using a calculator)? Your numbers are completely off.

[Edited on June 21, 2008 at 8:32 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2008 8:25:34 PM

Quote :

"When you are discussing gun control in the U.S., I think that you have to look at statistics in the U.S. Other countries, like Australia, may have serious cultural differences, so you can't just compare them with the U.S."

yeah Austrailia is not populated by individuals of certain low economic strata who glorify a life of gang violence, drug dealing, and chrome rims spinnin

6/21/2008 8:41:36 PM

^ OMG RACISTISM!!!!!11

6/21/2008 9:09:37 PM

Search the Armed Citizen Archives

Quote :

"During the decades the American Rifleman has published 'The Armed Citizen' column, thousands of incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime have appeared in the magazine. Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater of course, as award-winning survey research shows that each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times. This archive contains 'Armed Citizen' entries from the present back to 1958. The database is searchable by key word and state and results are displayed in chronological order according to the month of publication in the American Rifleman."

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

6/21/2008 10:51:32 PM

Yes, I'll go to the NRA site for some completely unbiased information on gun violence

6/21/2008 11:15:48 PM

^ ?

They're first-hand accounts from people who used guns to prevent a crime. It's basically a record of news clippings about guns being used by people to prevent a crime from happening. No doubt there is plenty of spin on the rest of the site, but a bunch of news articles reporting factual events aren't going to be the sort of tripe that you could write off as being biased against your cause.

6/21/2008 11:39:49 PM

^ Exactly.

^^ And you wouldn't accept the information if there were Polaroids of the crimes being stopped in progress! BTW, I'm one of those who used his pistol to stop a serious crime--but I suppose that's just a fluke, too.

6/21/2008 11:43:59 PM

Quote :

"When you are discussing gun control in the U.S., I think that you have to look at statistics in the U.S. Other countries, like Australia, may have serious cultural differences, so you can't just compare them with the U.S."

That would be pretty much impossible since we haven't had a widespread ban of guns in the United States.

Yes, there are some cultural differences, but it would still give you some insight on what would happen in regards to illegal gun trade, etc if you went to the absolute extreme on gun control. Australia still has their gangs and still has crime, but how has it been affected since gun ownership was strictly limited?

6/22/2008 12:23:52 AM

^
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=530484

6/22/2008 3:52:36 AM

^ lol that doesn't answer my question I do admit I'm bad about that though.

6/22/2008 8:38:18 AM

Quote :

"OMG RACISTISM!!!!!11 "

OMG OBSERVATION AND TRUTH!

6/22/2008 11:17:59 AM

Quote :

"aside from megaloman, who doesn't really count for the purposes of this argument, who wants this?"

I, for one, want no gun control. We must have a way to throw off the yoke of a tyrannical government. You know, what the fucking 2nd Amendment was for, and all

Quote :

"f the fine folks at the NRA would get their heads out of their asses and work with someone trying to keep, say, a mentally disturbed VT student from buying a couple of guns in a way that protects the right of Joe Responsible we probably wouldn't even be having this argument."

Actually, if VT had done their fucking duty and kicked the asshole out of school, seeing as how they FUCKING KNEW HE WAS MENTALLY DISTURBED, then none of that would have happened, either. But nah, blame it on the guns. They are what's at fault, right?

6/22/2008 2:44:10 PM

I support gun rights but do not beleive in unrestricted gun access.

A line should be drawn somewhere much like any other consumer item on the market. I can't buy beer before 21, my car must meet certain legal specs, i can not transmit my own signals at certain FCC restricted frequencies, etc

On this note i feel there is no practical reason a civilian should be able to go out and buy a M60, fully auto AK, or armor piercing bullets. Nor should those convicted of felony offenses or with mental health issues be allowed to own a firearm. A 3-day waiting period should not make a difference for owning a gun as if you are trying to own it for legal purposes their should not be an URGENT need to get it right away. If there is then maybe you should call the police or something.

6/22/2008 3:01:49 PM

Quote :

"On this note i feel there is no practical reason a civilian should be able to go out and buy a M60, fully auto AK, or armor piercing bullets."

And the government loves that you think this. King George would have loved if the colonists didn't have guns, either.

Quote :

"If there is then maybe you should call the police or something."

Yes, be dependent upon the government. Makes perfect sense

6/22/2008 3:14:28 PM

nice strawman;

you are right though i may need my M60 to ward off an attack by 10 crip members raiding my house or for slaughtering a class room of students.

6/22/2008 5:09:07 PM

Yeah, it's all pretty funny until your house actually is broken into. I'm sure it's very comforting to know that gun laws have prevented home owners and law abiding citizens from arming themselves with the same kind of weapons that their assailants and would be robbers, rapists, and murderers can easily get on the black market.

If there's one thing gun laws have been awesome at doing it's creating a black market of readily accessible guns for criminals that they would have had a much harder time getting were they not illegal for the public to have.

6/22/2008 5:26:41 PM

Wait, wait, wait. So you're saying that making guns less illegal would make it harder for criminals to get them even though they already seem to have an easy enough time obtaining access to them? Do you know how retarded that sounds?

6/22/2008 5:41:10 PM

He's got a point. For example, ask yourself which is easier for kids to get, tobacco, or pot? When you make something illegal, you simply put its distribution in less responsible and accountable hands. Kids have no trouble finding someone to sell them pot. Since tobacco is legal, there's less profit in it and fewer people willing to take the time and effort to peddle it to minors.

The same thing happens with guns. The more restrictions, the more there exists a flourishing black market.

6/22/2008 6:40:06 PM

Uh when I was a kid it was never a problem to get tobacco. In fact, ANYONE could find someone to buy tobacco for them at any time.

I'm sure it wasn't that hard for people who used drugs to get weed, but even someone who never used tobacco could get some at pretty much any time they wanted it.

Besides, your point is moot anyway. Even if your hypothetical tobacco vs weed situation were accurate, it would only be because there are SOME restrictions on tobacco, namely that you only sell to certain people.

[Edited on June 22, 2008 at 7:07 PM. Reason : ]

6/22/2008 7:04:17 PM

some people in here are just fucking idiots.

Banning guns like the M60 does NOT equal banning firearms. The M60 and any other light machine gun is meant for mowing down enemy forces. When in the fuck would a civilian need such stopping power. Even if it were put to legit use i am sure that 95% of the time it would used for illegal purposes. Much like pistols are more often used by gangsters shooting each other than for defense. I do not advocate banning pistols but at least they don't spray out 550 rpm

6/22/2008 9:26:53 PM

djfklsjdljfl

[Edited on June 22, 2008 at 9:37 PM. Reason : nvm]

6/22/2008 9:37:38 PM

Quote :

" When in the fuck would a civilian need such stopping power. "

That question is not relevant. There are plenty of guns that are legal or that people want to be legal that no one would ever "need." And there are rarely cases where most people "need" a gun anyway. But it's not about need, it's about want, and lots of people just like to shoot guns. I bet there is a sizable chunk of gun owners that don't even keep them around for protection, but mostly for just sport shooting.

6/22/2008 9:50:08 PM

guns woooo USA #1 git-er-dun
bam-bam-bam pop-pop-pop
can't tuk my gunz from me cold dead fingers


lololololololololololololol


* plz don't confuse my laughter at the obsession many americans have about complete unregulated unrestricted gun access as a desire to ban civilian ownership of firearms.

6/23/2008 12:02:49 AM

if you don't stop making dumbshit posts like that, i'm gonna have to put you in the box for a day or two.

6/23/2008 1:03:21 AM

So we don't need M60 machine guns or armor piercing bullets because they are overkill, right?

Since many students here including those who are against guns consume alcohol, I'll use alcohol as an example.

Well, I guess we'll have to ban 40 oz malt liquor, or 24 pack beers, beers containing more than 12% alcohol, or ZOMG, kegs! Yeah, machine guns are just overkill eh? But kegs aren't? Large quantities of alcohol isn't overkill, just ask anybody with a DUI!

*sarcasm off*

Citizens who take steps to legally aquire pre-ban 1986 transferable machine guns are not likely to use these weapons in crimes. The NFA system of registering such weapons has been in effect since 1934 for machine guns, sound suppessors, short barreled shotguns/rifles, grenade launchers, AOW weapons. And since 1934, only one crime was committed with an NFA registered firearm, and that was with a police officer.

So what if alcohol was like the transferable machine guns of today? Maybe we should just regulate however much alcohol drinks left in the USA (~187,000 guns, err um, containers). And when you do find a keg at rediculously inflated prices ($3000 a piece for the cheapest keg and up to $150,000 for the most desirable machine gun, err, keg) make the buyer pay another $200 for a tax stamp, and you must get a Class III alcohol permit for that, that'll take at least 6 months to a year to get through. Maybe you aren't smart enough to consume alcohol, we'll have to make you do a background check with the FBI and have your psychological medical history to make sure you're okay to have and enjoy that keg next to society.

To sum up my statement, machine guns in hands of private citizens are tightly regulated in the US and are barely involved in any crimes (going by history, no statistics). Other "dangerous" and "unnecessary" items such as alcohol and to some extent, tobacco, are nowhere as nearly regulated and controled as machine guns, but yet can be dangerous to society as in DUIs, lung cancer, nicotine dependance, alcoholism, bing-drinking, wife beating, beer goggles, etc.

P.S. "Guns kill people as much as spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat"

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 1:48 AM. Reason : :]

6/23/2008 1:45:19 AM

machine guns are irrelevent, anyway. they have been restricted from ownership since 1934, and there isn't any significant push to change that. you can own one, but it requires an extensive and very lengthy (like 6 months, i think) background investigation by the FBI.

also, the costs are enormous--not so much for the legal stuff, but just to buy a full auto weapon. most of them are $10-20k.

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 2:04 AM. Reason : ^ i don't think there has ever been a case of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime]

6/23/2008 2:04:05 AM

That seems like a case of how gun regulation can actually be a good thing.

6/23/2008 2:08:54 AM

i generally concur. i think it works well.

6/23/2008 2:31:19 AM

I bet that guy would be willing to share his entire collection with some like-minded individuals should a revolution ever need some militia as well.

6/23/2008 3:54:06 AM

Quote :

"if you don't stop making dumbshit posts like that, i'm gonna have to put you in the box for a day or two."

sorry duke

Quote :

"So we don't need M60 machine guns or armor piercing bullets because they are overkill, right? Since many students here including those who are against guns consume alcohol, I'll use alcohol as an example. Well, I guess we'll have to ban 40 oz malt liquor, or 24 pack beers, beers containing more than 12% alcohol, or ZOMG, kegs! Yeah, machine guns are just overkill eh? But kegs aren't? Large quantities of alcohol isn't overkill, just ask anybody with a DUI!"

good example. In NC until recently i could not buy beer that was greater than 6%. If i want to purchase a keg or get more than
6 liters of liquor I must fill out a proper ABC permit part of which is listing where i am taking the alcohol. Currently I can not
purchase alcohol before 12 pm on Sundays or after 2 am any given night. Use of alcohol is also restricted to those 21+.

By the way do you all think we should be able to legally purchase silencers? Never know when i may need to stealthly utilize
my weapon for self defence

Quote :

"i don't think there has ever been a case of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime"

technically its a SMG but are rap artists love singing about their Tec-9.

6/23/2008 3:57:38 AM

technically its a handgun, and a piece of shit

6/23/2008 1:06:09 PM

Dude, you are debating on what is nessesary or not, again..... Do you really need machine guns, silencers, or alcohol? No. But society chooses to have them for recreational purposes. You drink beer because you like to. Both silencers and alcohol could have negative side effect with the well being of society. It's a privelage as a law-abiding person to own posess such items, including alcohol.

Also, you're saying that there are regulations when it comes to buying alcohol, yes, like you do have to be 21 to purchase them legally. Well, with NFA items, you have to be 21 also, and you must do paperwork to obtain them. But do you have to do a background check if you want to buy alcohol, and if there is, how long does it take? Probably nowhere near as long as trying to obtain an NFA weapon. How long does it take to get a alcohol permit to buy "large amounts" of liquor? Again, probably not as long as with aquiring NFA stuff.

Either way, just quit with arguing what is needed or not needed. Some people just choose to collect special weapons and use them for recreational purposes like target shooting or collecting, and people choose to drink for recreational purposes, like social events or collecting. This is America, not France, or China.

6/23/2008 2:42:31 PM

To the 420 dude.... Just because its 2008 doesn't mean nothing can happen in US shores. Did you forget Sept 11, 2001? Nobody thought it would happen to our own shores, but it did. You have no idea what will happen 50 years, 100 years from now, and so on. Political tensions are always around. Humans have been at war with each other back to the start of mankind. Do you think we just all the sudden happen to be civilized people and learn from our mistakes from the past? No. The ability to defend ourselves from harm is a right, not a privalege.

6/23/2008 2:49:47 PM

And some people collect weapons with the intentions of harming other people. No one collects alcohol with the intention of harming other people. To compare the two is completely ignorant on your part. One is a weapon created to harm other people and the other is a recreational drug mostly used to have a good time. There may be similarities between the two as far as use and misuse, but to compare them really takes away from your argument because they are not really similar at all. Whether a gun is bought for recreational purposes does not change the fact that it can wreak havoc on a large number of people. Alcohol does not have that capability.

TheDuke already posted a good example of how gun regulation has worked as far as machine guns go. If those things were unregulated, people would be getting mowed down all the time in crowded areas. But they aren't because regulation works in this case. People who really want them and are responsible enough to have one can still have them and people who really want them and would go on killing rampages can not have them. Is this the answer for all types of guns? I don't think so. But for the kinds that have a large capacity to kill people it seems like a good idea.

Gun regulation isn't meant to keep guns out of people's hands. It's meant to give guns to people who are responsible enough to use them properly and who deserve them.

6/23/2008 2:52:18 PM

Quote :

"To the 420 dude.... Just because its 2008 doesn't mean nothing can happen in US shores. Did you forget Sept 11, 2001? Nobody thought it would happen to our own shores, but it did. You have no idea what will happen 50 years, 100 years from now, and so on. Political tensions are always around. Humans have been at war with each other back to the start of mankind. Do you think we just all the sudden happen to be civilized people and learn from our mistakes from the past? No. The ability to defend ourselves from harm is a right, not a privalege."

This is the weakest argument I have seen for pro-gun people I've seen yet. You sir, are a moron.

6/23/2008 2:53:18 PM

so "anti-gun" people can make the argument about how modern times arent the same as when the founding fathers came up with the constitution and therefore there isnt as much of a need to bear arms and form militias, but pro-gun people can't make the argument that times change?

6/23/2008 3:03:49 PM

i'm going to give up. because someone would surely argue that one should be able to own a abrhams tank and it shouldn't be a big deal having it chilling in the garage.

6/23/2008 4:26:19 PM

^^ I don't see how anything he brought up is relevant to the topic we've been discussing. So no. I don't see how Sept 11, 2001 proves that we need more guns. I think it proves how lax our anti-terrorism policies were. It was a weak argument and I called him the fuck out.

6/23/2008 5:27:07 PM

i think you missed my point

apparently its ok for people who are for stricter gun control to say "when the constitution was founded, we had threats from indians, the british, wild animals, etc...we needed the 2nd amendment...nowadays we have the police and stuff and therefore the amendment isnt as important or necessary as it used to be"...but he or any other person who is opposed to stricter gun control can't point to the possibility that times can get worse? we're kind of at war right now btw in case you forgot

6/23/2008 5:36:18 PM

Once again, your point has zero relevance to what's being discussed.

6/23/2008 6:27:25 PM

So I guess it's time to start enforcing some new "Alcohol Control" laws? I mean since so many people are killed by drunk driving every year, I guess we have to regulate the responsible people who can moderate their usage.

6/23/2008 6:33:41 PM

Better yet, let's regulate all food because so many people die of heart attacks and shit.

Do you see how retarded your argument is now? Alcohol is not a good argument for less gun control.

[Edited on June 23, 2008 at 7:27 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2008 7:26:18 PM

I dont see how it's retarded. We're talking about things that are perfectly legal to do yet irresponsible use of either can result in death or injury. Responsible gun owners shouldn't punished for the morons who decided to shoot someone. Nor should a bar patron be punished because he was responsible enough to take a cab home while the other guy decided to drive drunk.

If you take away guns, then all you have are the people who are willing to break the law to get them and it's likely that these are the people who would use them in a harmful manner. This basically leaves you with unarmed, law abiding citizens vs the armed criminals who had no issue breaking the law to obtain a weapon.

After going through the process of purchasing a pistol and a host of other firearms myself, I feel that the gun control laws currently in place are sufficient enough. Although they aren't perfect, heavier regulation isn't really going to stop a criminal from obtaining one for his/her illegal purposes.

6/23/2008 8:20:07 PM

Quote :

"Banning guns like the M60 does NOT equal banning firearms."

Quote :

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

nah, fuck that Constitution, b

6/23/2008 8:26:00 PM

A well regulated militia...

6/23/2008 8:26:58 PM

makes no difference. It doesn't say "the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It says "the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

6/23/2008 8:31:23 PM

They also couldn't conceive of the weapons we had today. Had they known what would have been created, they probably would have put some exceptions in there. living document and all that stff

6/23/2008 8:38:36 PM

BUT

THEY

DIDN'T.

Do we, or do we not, follow our fucking Constitution? It's really that simple! And, if you want to be a dick about it, what fucking good is a militia if it can't fight off an enemy? Seems to me that such powerful weapons would be covered by "the militia clause," even if it did apply. And, kind sir, you seem to neglect that we did have artillery back in the day. Are you going to suggest that they would allow a man to own artillery but NOT own a machine gun? That is pure madness.

6/23/2008 8:41:22 PM